Clause 9
Welfare Reform Bill
12:45 pm
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
I am grateful for that intervention. We all agree here. It is a question of teasing out an understanding that the £360 million or perhaps even greater resources will be adequate to fund everyone in the support group who might want to volunteer for work-related activity, which, under the provision as drafted, they are under no obligation to do. An interesting question is how many will wish to volunteer for the work-related activity and whether that is resourced.
My final point relates to access to work. One of the many active labour market programmes that might be relevant to getting those in the support group to work-related activity and making it successful for them is access to work. This is not the place to have the debate about that very good programme, which is popular with those employers who know about it. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is responsible for that programme, understands what good value for money it represents in public spending terms. It is not just me saying that, but Citizens Advice, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and many others.
I have one question about access to work which bears on the amendment. It is my understanding that access-to-work funding is not available to those undertaking voluntary work. Voluntary work could be part of the work-related activity that support component customers might want to do. Therefore, those who wish to undertake such work-related activity seem to be at a disadvantage—access-to-work funding will not be available to them. I understand historically why that is the case, but if such funding is not available for those who want to go from the support component to work-related activity, can either Minister tell us whether there is anything commensurate to help them? Are there any pots of money and Government programmes that might meet the needs of people who wish to do voluntary activity, but who are not required to do it under the clause because they are in the support component? For them, an access to work-style programme may be particularly helpful.